I have shamelessly copied this article from the Dakota Voice after having received an email from a brother-in-law who lives in Maine. I should also add that after having "Googled" the topic, I found that Congressman J. Randy Forbes has written a similar article on his website click here.
Congressional Prayer Caucus to Obama: Issue National Motto Correction
By Guest Author on December 6th, 2010
The following press release was issued from the Congressional Prayer Caucus today:
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04), along with 42 bipartisan Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, today sent a letter to President Barack Obama calling on him to issue a correction to a speech he gave in Jakarta, Indonesia, in which he inaccurately referred to our national motto as being “E Pluribus unum.” The official national motto is “In God We Trust.”
“For the President of the United States to incorrectly state something as foundational as our national motto in another country is unacceptable. The President is the primary representative of our nation to the world, and whether mistake or intention, his actions cast aside an integral part of American society,” said Forbes. “President Reagan once warned that ‘If we ever forget that we’re one national under God, then we will be a nation gone under.’”
In his speech on November 10, 2010 at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, President Obama said “But I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum – out of many one…our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag.”
“In God We Trust” has been a foundational phrase used throughout our nation’s history, from Presidential proclamations, to engravings in both the House and Senate chambers, to the oath taken by all federal employees. In 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law establishing “In God We Trust” as the official national motto of the United States. The motto is referred to in the national anthem and is engraved on U.S. coins and currency.
In addition, on October 18, during a fundraiser, President Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was the third time in over a month that the President omitted the word “Creator” from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence specifically recognizes God, the Creator, as the source of inalienable rights.
“Once may be a mistake. But twice is a pattern. These omissions and inaccuracies are a part of a larger pattern we are seeing with the President where he is inaccurately reflecting America and undercutting important parts of our nation’s history,” said Forbes. “Trust in God is embedded into the fabric of society and history in the United States. If we allow these threads to be pulled, we will begin to unravel the very freedoms that birthed America.”
In the letter, the members asked that the President issue a correction to the speech he gave in Jakarta and expressed their willingness to meet with him to discuss the issue further. A copy of the letter is available here
.
The Congressional Prayer Caucus is a bipartisan group of Members of Congress dedicated to preserving America’s religious heritage and protecting religious liberties. The Prayer Caucus successfully led efforts to ensure that “In God We Trust” was included in the newly constructed Capitol Visitor Center after it had been removed and the national motto incorrectly noted as “E Pluribus unum.” Congressman Forbes is founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A Wisconsin Citizen's Open Letter to the New Governor and Senator
This, my fellow Americans, is a homerun.
Open Letter to Wisconsin Governor-Elect Scott Walker & Senator-Elect Ron Johnson
By Dave Brown · Friday, December 3, 2010
Congratulations on your election victories on 2 November 2010! We are blessed to have two men of good character to lead and represent Wisconsin. There are three critical issues that require your immediate attention. If these issues are not addressed first, all others are meaningless. It will take courage on your part equal to the courage demonstrated by the Founding Fathers and more recently by New Jersey Governor Chris Christy. Government spending must be drastically reduced. The survival of our country depends on it. The short term goal should be a 50% reduction. There can be only one of two results in this defining battle ... saving America, or the destruction of America. Opposition to your efforts will be intense.
The national debt is at 13.5 trillion. Even if government spending is cut 50% it will take several generations to repay this debt. With minor spending reductions, like those being recommended by the debt and deficit commission, the debt will not be re-paid, ever. The federal government spent 1.4 trillion in 2009 and 1.35 trillion in 2010 more than it took in tax revenue. This un-checked spending is destroying the United States of America.
"Men of energy of character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as they feel that effect."
--Thomas Jefferson, December 21, 1817
I believe in the country of our Founding Fathers. The principles of honoring the Almighty, personal responsibility, character, integrity, and honesty make the foundation that supports the American ideal. Without a true respect for these principles no person will ever enjoy their unalienable rights granted by the Creator among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Fortunately for Wisconsinites both of you have demonstrated a healthy respect for these principles. I believe you are both up to the challenge.
Here are the major issues:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
The number of federal, state, and local employees must be reduced by 50%. At the federal level this means postal workers, agency bureaucrats, FBI, CIA, and the list goes on and on. At the state level this means starting with divesting the University of Wisconsin system. Let the new private university compete in the free market. If their customers (students) don't mind paying six figure salaries to professors that work one day/week, and don't mind supplying University administrators with lavish compensation including luxury housing with servants, luxury cars, and unlimited expense accounts then great! On the other hand if struggling students don't see why they have to pay for these luxuries academia may have to adjust how they do business, or lose all of their customers. It also means cutting teachers, firefighters, non-frontline police, DNR, etc… Those public employees that remain must have compensation equivalent to similar jobs in the private sector.
Reason must be applied when making cuts, example: In most cases reductions would not be appropriate in frontline law enforcement, national security, FBI, and border patrol. This means the men and women on the street. However desk jockeys and bureaucrats in these agencies can and must be eliminated. No cuts in military personnel would be appropriate in a time of war either. However, elimination of entire agencies like the postal service, departments of education, energy, housing and urban development, agriculture, NASA, to name a few would help meet the 50% target.
Can we survive a 50% cut in government employees? Here are the current government full time employee numbers:
Federal 14.6 million
State 3.8 million
Local 11.0 million
-------------------------------
Total 29.4 million
Certainly America will survive with half of 29.4 million. 14.7 million government employees still looks extraordinarily high and inappropriate for a free country. Note these numbers do not include 1.5 million state and 3.2 million local government part time employees.
Not only will America survive it will thrive after these reductions are made. It may take some adjustment for the newly unemployed public workers to find meaningful, productive work in the private sector. Adjusting to the required work standard in the private sector may be traumatic for some but when they do the economy will expand and improve.
For remaining government employees pensions must be abolished. No public employee including elected officials should receive a pension or any other benefit (health insurance) of any type under any circumstance upon termination of employment. The only exception would be for retired military honorably discharged after 20 years of service or for any military service person injured while serving. Retired military and/or injured military should receive a pension and healthcare for the remainder of their lives.
Forcing a productive citizen to pay for the public employee's life of ease and enjoyment in retirement (that usually begins around age 50 for this very privileged class) against his will is unconstitutional.
XIII Amendment Section I, ratified December 6, 1865
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The language is clear and needs no lawyer to translate the meaning to citizens. It means if a politician enters into a contract with a pubic employee union, or passes a law that obligates me to pay pension and benefits to the idle public employee for the remainder of their natural lives so they may live in ease, leisure, and comfort in retirement is clearly unconstitutional. It is not only unconstitutional; it is illegal, immoral, and obscene. It is the definition of involuntary servitude. Why should those working in the private sector, who receive no pension, be expected to save for our own retirement and be required to pay the public employee's pension? We are all familiar with standard justifications for this...but these are noble professions, who could possibly be against police, firemen, teachers, etc…, or compensation and benefits must be high or we will lose these very special people to the private market place, or they work in difficult conditions so they deserve lavish benefits... There is no limit to the straw man arguments from public union leaders and politicians to justify this mess.
Public employee unions must be abolished and outlawed.
Public employees organized into a union feeding at the same public trough elbow to elbow with lawmakers is an obvious disaster for the tax payer. Peer pressure on lawmakers from their unionized fellow trough eaters to keep the trough full at all costs is intense and is the reason politicians give up their soul, some quicker than others, once elected to office. The politician quickly realizes his highest priority is to keep squeezing the tax payer so the trough remains full. Life at the trough looks very attractive to many working and/or idling in the private sector. It is like a giant magnet attracting more and more people. It is obvious to those working in the private sector the public employee's compensation and benefits are much better than his.
The politician/lawmaker realizes his fellow trough eaters are always a solid vote so why wouldn't he want to add more and more trough eaters? What a wonderful system he thinks to himself, a real no-brainer! He realizes he has the power to extract more money from the tax payer because he makes the laws that direct the guys with the uniforms and guns, that run the IRS, and run the prisons. The stunning part for those in the private sector is that no politician is willing to acknowledge the obvious -- the public employee orgy of compensation and benefits has sunk America into a black hole of debt.
Public employees are keenly aware they have no chance whatsoever to match their lavish government compensation and benefits in the private sector. They will fight as King George III did to force the productive class to keep the trough full, at gun point if required.
ENTITLEMENTS
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
Entitlements are destroying our country morally and financially. Welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and housing subsidies must be abolished. No where in the constitution is the government authorized to take the treasure and earnings from one and give to another. As Ben Franklin observed 244 years ago ...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer... This was true in 1766, true in 2010, and will still be true in 2254 (if we survive). As for the cost of medical care, consumers must pay for medical care. The current system of having others pay for one's medical care removes any incentive to shop for the best provider, the best price for meds, or for many to take care to eat a proper diet and exercise. The free market will do as it always does when not interfered with by government -- it will reward care providers that provide the best service at the best price and punish those that don't. The winner is the consumer. It is no more complicated than that.
Will this be a painful adjustment? Yes. Will people suffer? Yes. Remember Freedom is not free. Freedom means you reap what you sow. Freedom gives the individual a choice of planning, working, learning, and living responsibly. Which means more often than not you will enjoy the blessings and rewards of living this way. Freedom also means the individual can choose to not plan, not work, not learn, and live irresponsibly. These choices usually lead to a miserable life, probably behind bars or dead at an early age.
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison
The current system of forcing the responsible to pay for irresponsible is unconstitutional and immoral. One lucky break for the irresponsible and for good people that happen to fall on hard times, is that America is the most charitable, giving nation on the planet. There are hundreds of charitable organizations in America. There is no finer charity than The Salvation Army. The CEO makes $13,000 a year. $0.93 of every dollar donated goes directly to the needy. Compare this incredibly high ratio to that of the federal government. What percentage of a dollar given to the government goes to the needy after paying the 14.6 million federal government employees, 82,000 of which make more than $150,000/year? I do not imagine it is close to $0.93.
TAXATION
"[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Income tax, state and federal, must be abolished. The practice of confiscating a large percentage of a productive worker's wages from his pay before he ever takes possession of his justly earned compensation dulls the pain of surrendering his earnings to the government. If productive citizens had to write a check out to the state and federal government every month for their share of taxes based on their income there would be revolution tomorrow. All capital gains taxes must be abolished. The death tax must be abolished.
Taxation should be levied on purchased goods and services only. The percentage tax rate must be the same for all consumers and for all goods and services. The government cannot make punitive tax rates on businesses or products it does not favor for any reason. This includes oil, gas, tobacco, alcohol, etc... Everything is taxed at the same rate. Corporate taxes must be abolished. This is a devious way for government to tax citizens without accountability. Only people pay taxes, not corporations.
SUMMARY
These are the main issues and unless addressed first makes addressing all other issues equivalent to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Mr. Walker, when you gave back over $300,000 of your county salary it spoke volumes of the type of man you are. It reminds me of a quote I read on the church bulletin board years ago that stuck with me, that goes: What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say.
You both are good men and I believe you are up for the challenge. God bless both of you. I will support you in any way needed.
Dave Brown
Franklin, WI
Open Letter to Wisconsin Governor-Elect Scott Walker & Senator-Elect Ron Johnson
By Dave Brown · Friday, December 3, 2010
Congratulations on your election victories on 2 November 2010! We are blessed to have two men of good character to lead and represent Wisconsin. There are three critical issues that require your immediate attention. If these issues are not addressed first, all others are meaningless. It will take courage on your part equal to the courage demonstrated by the Founding Fathers and more recently by New Jersey Governor Chris Christy. Government spending must be drastically reduced. The survival of our country depends on it. The short term goal should be a 50% reduction. There can be only one of two results in this defining battle ... saving America, or the destruction of America. Opposition to your efforts will be intense.
The national debt is at 13.5 trillion. Even if government spending is cut 50% it will take several generations to repay this debt. With minor spending reductions, like those being recommended by the debt and deficit commission, the debt will not be re-paid, ever. The federal government spent 1.4 trillion in 2009 and 1.35 trillion in 2010 more than it took in tax revenue. This un-checked spending is destroying the United States of America.
"Men of energy of character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as they feel that effect."
--Thomas Jefferson, December 21, 1817
I believe in the country of our Founding Fathers. The principles of honoring the Almighty, personal responsibility, character, integrity, and honesty make the foundation that supports the American ideal. Without a true respect for these principles no person will ever enjoy their unalienable rights granted by the Creator among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Fortunately for Wisconsinites both of you have demonstrated a healthy respect for these principles. I believe you are both up to the challenge.
Here are the major issues:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
The number of federal, state, and local employees must be reduced by 50%. At the federal level this means postal workers, agency bureaucrats, FBI, CIA, and the list goes on and on. At the state level this means starting with divesting the University of Wisconsin system. Let the new private university compete in the free market. If their customers (students) don't mind paying six figure salaries to professors that work one day/week, and don't mind supplying University administrators with lavish compensation including luxury housing with servants, luxury cars, and unlimited expense accounts then great! On the other hand if struggling students don't see why they have to pay for these luxuries academia may have to adjust how they do business, or lose all of their customers. It also means cutting teachers, firefighters, non-frontline police, DNR, etc… Those public employees that remain must have compensation equivalent to similar jobs in the private sector.
Reason must be applied when making cuts, example: In most cases reductions would not be appropriate in frontline law enforcement, national security, FBI, and border patrol. This means the men and women on the street. However desk jockeys and bureaucrats in these agencies can and must be eliminated. No cuts in military personnel would be appropriate in a time of war either. However, elimination of entire agencies like the postal service, departments of education, energy, housing and urban development, agriculture, NASA, to name a few would help meet the 50% target.
Can we survive a 50% cut in government employees? Here are the current government full time employee numbers:
Federal 14.6 million
State 3.8 million
Local 11.0 million
-------------------------------
Total 29.4 million
Certainly America will survive with half of 29.4 million. 14.7 million government employees still looks extraordinarily high and inappropriate for a free country. Note these numbers do not include 1.5 million state and 3.2 million local government part time employees.
Not only will America survive it will thrive after these reductions are made. It may take some adjustment for the newly unemployed public workers to find meaningful, productive work in the private sector. Adjusting to the required work standard in the private sector may be traumatic for some but when they do the economy will expand and improve.
For remaining government employees pensions must be abolished. No public employee including elected officials should receive a pension or any other benefit (health insurance) of any type under any circumstance upon termination of employment. The only exception would be for retired military honorably discharged after 20 years of service or for any military service person injured while serving. Retired military and/or injured military should receive a pension and healthcare for the remainder of their lives.
Forcing a productive citizen to pay for the public employee's life of ease and enjoyment in retirement (that usually begins around age 50 for this very privileged class) against his will is unconstitutional.
XIII Amendment Section I, ratified December 6, 1865
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The language is clear and needs no lawyer to translate the meaning to citizens. It means if a politician enters into a contract with a pubic employee union, or passes a law that obligates me to pay pension and benefits to the idle public employee for the remainder of their natural lives so they may live in ease, leisure, and comfort in retirement is clearly unconstitutional. It is not only unconstitutional; it is illegal, immoral, and obscene. It is the definition of involuntary servitude. Why should those working in the private sector, who receive no pension, be expected to save for our own retirement and be required to pay the public employee's pension? We are all familiar with standard justifications for this...but these are noble professions, who could possibly be against police, firemen, teachers, etc…, or compensation and benefits must be high or we will lose these very special people to the private market place, or they work in difficult conditions so they deserve lavish benefits... There is no limit to the straw man arguments from public union leaders and politicians to justify this mess.
Public employee unions must be abolished and outlawed.
Public employees organized into a union feeding at the same public trough elbow to elbow with lawmakers is an obvious disaster for the tax payer. Peer pressure on lawmakers from their unionized fellow trough eaters to keep the trough full at all costs is intense and is the reason politicians give up their soul, some quicker than others, once elected to office. The politician quickly realizes his highest priority is to keep squeezing the tax payer so the trough remains full. Life at the trough looks very attractive to many working and/or idling in the private sector. It is like a giant magnet attracting more and more people. It is obvious to those working in the private sector the public employee's compensation and benefits are much better than his.
The politician/lawmaker realizes his fellow trough eaters are always a solid vote so why wouldn't he want to add more and more trough eaters? What a wonderful system he thinks to himself, a real no-brainer! He realizes he has the power to extract more money from the tax payer because he makes the laws that direct the guys with the uniforms and guns, that run the IRS, and run the prisons. The stunning part for those in the private sector is that no politician is willing to acknowledge the obvious -- the public employee orgy of compensation and benefits has sunk America into a black hole of debt.
Public employees are keenly aware they have no chance whatsoever to match their lavish government compensation and benefits in the private sector. They will fight as King George III did to force the productive class to keep the trough full, at gun point if required.
ENTITLEMENTS
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
Entitlements are destroying our country morally and financially. Welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and housing subsidies must be abolished. No where in the constitution is the government authorized to take the treasure and earnings from one and give to another. As Ben Franklin observed 244 years ago ...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer... This was true in 1766, true in 2010, and will still be true in 2254 (if we survive). As for the cost of medical care, consumers must pay for medical care. The current system of having others pay for one's medical care removes any incentive to shop for the best provider, the best price for meds, or for many to take care to eat a proper diet and exercise. The free market will do as it always does when not interfered with by government -- it will reward care providers that provide the best service at the best price and punish those that don't. The winner is the consumer. It is no more complicated than that.
Will this be a painful adjustment? Yes. Will people suffer? Yes. Remember Freedom is not free. Freedom means you reap what you sow. Freedom gives the individual a choice of planning, working, learning, and living responsibly. Which means more often than not you will enjoy the blessings and rewards of living this way. Freedom also means the individual can choose to not plan, not work, not learn, and live irresponsibly. These choices usually lead to a miserable life, probably behind bars or dead at an early age.
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison
The current system of forcing the responsible to pay for irresponsible is unconstitutional and immoral. One lucky break for the irresponsible and for good people that happen to fall on hard times, is that America is the most charitable, giving nation on the planet. There are hundreds of charitable organizations in America. There is no finer charity than The Salvation Army. The CEO makes $13,000 a year. $0.93 of every dollar donated goes directly to the needy. Compare this incredibly high ratio to that of the federal government. What percentage of a dollar given to the government goes to the needy after paying the 14.6 million federal government employees, 82,000 of which make more than $150,000/year? I do not imagine it is close to $0.93.
TAXATION
"[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Income tax, state and federal, must be abolished. The practice of confiscating a large percentage of a productive worker's wages from his pay before he ever takes possession of his justly earned compensation dulls the pain of surrendering his earnings to the government. If productive citizens had to write a check out to the state and federal government every month for their share of taxes based on their income there would be revolution tomorrow. All capital gains taxes must be abolished. The death tax must be abolished.
Taxation should be levied on purchased goods and services only. The percentage tax rate must be the same for all consumers and for all goods and services. The government cannot make punitive tax rates on businesses or products it does not favor for any reason. This includes oil, gas, tobacco, alcohol, etc... Everything is taxed at the same rate. Corporate taxes must be abolished. This is a devious way for government to tax citizens without accountability. Only people pay taxes, not corporations.
SUMMARY
These are the main issues and unless addressed first makes addressing all other issues equivalent to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Mr. Walker, when you gave back over $300,000 of your county salary it spoke volumes of the type of man you are. It reminds me of a quote I read on the church bulletin board years ago that stuck with me, that goes: What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say.
You both are good men and I believe you are up for the challenge. God bless both of you. I will support you in any way needed.
Dave Brown
Franklin, WI
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Subtle Way Hollywood Turns the Christian Theme
Does caring, working together in harmony, joyous relationships equal boring? Do we have to have conflict within our own ranks to provide excitement? And why can't we take something that someone else wrote and that has a very wide following and not change it thereby changing the underlying goodness of the story?
Mere Entertainment?
By: Anne Morse|Published: December 9, 2010 10:53 AM
Topics: Arts & Media, Books, Religion & Society
Many Christians are eagerly anticipating the third film of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles, due in theaters in December. We love the fact that these deeply Christian stories are making their way to a wider audience. But one theologian wonders if the films really are a faithful representation of Lewis’s deeply Christian worldview.
In a Touchstone magazine essay titled “Narnia Invaded,” Steven Boyer says we should “think carefully about a significant element in Lewis’s vision that does not play very well in our world”: His “particular fondness for hierarchy.”
Christianity teaches that there is a hierarchal distinction between God and the world He created, with humans rightly subordinating to the God who creates and sustains us. As well, the Christian tradition teaches the goodness of hierarchy through all sorts of human relationships. “When that order is respected, real joy and freedom are the result,” Boyer says.
Writers like Dante, Spenser, Milton, and Virgil, along with Lewis, “understand the idea that just rulership and obedience are inextricable one from the other—that they are, in fact, the same virtue in different modes,” Boyer adds. Of course, throughout history people have abused hierarchy—everyone from dictators to fathers who demand unquestioning obedience from their families. And this is why, for many moderns, the very word hierarchy reeks of domination and oppression.
Unfortunately, this is the view of hierarchy the Narnia scriptwriters embrace. For instance, in Lewis’s books, the lion Aslan makes the four Pevensie children kings of Narnia, who rule harmoniously over Narnia. Peter, the oldest brother, is made the High King over the others. When the children return to Narnia and encounter Prince Caspian, the relationship between Peter and Caspian is marked by mutual respect, reliance, and open-handedness.
But the scriptwriters destroy this view of honorable cooperation. Peter and Caspian—whose dealings are marked by rancor and antagonism—battle constantly over who is really in charge in their efforts to rescue Narnia from the evil King Miraz. During a great battle, their own ignoble desires lead to the unnecessary deaths of their own soldiers.
But if you page through Prince Caspian, you’ll find that Peter and Caspian treat one another with great respect and cooperation.
The film’s depiction of hierarchy reveals a great deal about the scriptwriters, who are, Boyer notes, essentially admitting that they “understand nothing about power other than that it is meant to make other people do what you want them to do.” In effect, the scriptwriters accept the view of hierarchy embraced by the evil King Miraz, who stole the throne from Caspian: For Miraz, there is no such thing as legitimate hierarchy, only power. Kingship is not about sacrificing for one’s subjects, but about enjoying unquestioned authority—and destroying anyone who stands in the way.
Sadly, Boyer says, this means that viewers of the Narnia films are getting “mere entertainment” instead of Lewis’s “richly Christian view of the world.”
And what of the latest film in the series, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?
I saw an advance screening of the film a couple of weeks ago. I’m pleased to say that there is more respect for appropriate hierarchy here than in the previous two films. For instance, after Edmund and Lucy Pevensie fall back into Narnia through a seascape, Edmund unthinkingly attempts to take charge in a tense situation. The ship’s captain, Drinian, respectfully tells Edmund that the only person he takes orders from is Prince Caspian. Edmund accepts this gentle rebuke. We also see, through Lucy and Edmund’s obnoxious cousin Eustace, the consequences of failing to respect appropriate hierarchy.
When the travelers arrive at an uninhabited island, they discover that anything dropped into a body of water will turn to gold. Caspian—realizing the immense wealth and power that could come to anyone who exploited this knowledge—claims the island as a Narnian possession. He sternly forbids his companions from telling anyone about the island’s secret on pain of death. Edmund immediately (and rather nastily) contests Caspian’s right to command him.
While this may seem like a revisiting of the “who’s the boss?” hostility so much in evidence in Prince Caspian between Peter and Caspian, in reality, the scene comes straight out of the book:
“The king who owned this island,” said Caspian slowly, and his face flushed as he spoke, ”would soon be the richest of all kings of the world. I claim this land for ever as a Narnian possession. . . . And I bind all of you to secrecy. No one must know of this. Not even Drinian—on pain of death, do you hear?”
“Who are you talking to?” said Edmund. “I’m no subject of yours. If anything it’s the other way round. I am one of the four ancient sovereigns of Narnia and you are under allegiance to the High King my brother.”
“So it has come to that, King Edmund, has it?” said Caspian, laying his hand on his sword-hilt.”
In the book, Aslan appears to wake the children out of the trance the island has put them under. In the film, Lucy reminds them that the magician they encountered earlier had warned them that evil would try to sway them from their path.
Parents whose children have watched the previous two Chronicles of Narnia films, and who are eagerly awaiting the third one, might consider using Voyage of the Dawn Treader as a springboard for a discussion about both biblical and non-biblical hierarchy. With this film, as with all others, children should be taught to identify the worldview of those who created it. Where and why does the film deviate from Lewis’s original? Did screenwriters add scenes and change the story in order to add more excitement? Or did they alter the story in order to tone down the Christian message?
While we should be mindful of the film’s messages, we should not focus on them so hard that we cut into our enjoyment of it. It’s a rollicking adventure story, filled with dragons and sea serpents, magicians and Dufflepuds, a delightfully bratty schoolboy who gets his comeuppance—and a Lion who takes the young adventurers to the end of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mere Entertainment?
By: Anne Morse|Published: December 9, 2010 10:53 AM
Topics: Arts & Media, Books, Religion & Society
Many Christians are eagerly anticipating the third film of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles, due in theaters in December. We love the fact that these deeply Christian stories are making their way to a wider audience. But one theologian wonders if the films really are a faithful representation of Lewis’s deeply Christian worldview.
In a Touchstone magazine essay titled “Narnia Invaded,” Steven Boyer says we should “think carefully about a significant element in Lewis’s vision that does not play very well in our world”: His “particular fondness for hierarchy.”
Christianity teaches that there is a hierarchal distinction between God and the world He created, with humans rightly subordinating to the God who creates and sustains us. As well, the Christian tradition teaches the goodness of hierarchy through all sorts of human relationships. “When that order is respected, real joy and freedom are the result,” Boyer says.
Writers like Dante, Spenser, Milton, and Virgil, along with Lewis, “understand the idea that just rulership and obedience are inextricable one from the other—that they are, in fact, the same virtue in different modes,” Boyer adds. Of course, throughout history people have abused hierarchy—everyone from dictators to fathers who demand unquestioning obedience from their families. And this is why, for many moderns, the very word hierarchy reeks of domination and oppression.
Unfortunately, this is the view of hierarchy the Narnia scriptwriters embrace. For instance, in Lewis’s books, the lion Aslan makes the four Pevensie children kings of Narnia, who rule harmoniously over Narnia. Peter, the oldest brother, is made the High King over the others. When the children return to Narnia and encounter Prince Caspian, the relationship between Peter and Caspian is marked by mutual respect, reliance, and open-handedness.
But the scriptwriters destroy this view of honorable cooperation. Peter and Caspian—whose dealings are marked by rancor and antagonism—battle constantly over who is really in charge in their efforts to rescue Narnia from the evil King Miraz. During a great battle, their own ignoble desires lead to the unnecessary deaths of their own soldiers.
But if you page through Prince Caspian, you’ll find that Peter and Caspian treat one another with great respect and cooperation.
The film’s depiction of hierarchy reveals a great deal about the scriptwriters, who are, Boyer notes, essentially admitting that they “understand nothing about power other than that it is meant to make other people do what you want them to do.” In effect, the scriptwriters accept the view of hierarchy embraced by the evil King Miraz, who stole the throne from Caspian: For Miraz, there is no such thing as legitimate hierarchy, only power. Kingship is not about sacrificing for one’s subjects, but about enjoying unquestioned authority—and destroying anyone who stands in the way.
Sadly, Boyer says, this means that viewers of the Narnia films are getting “mere entertainment” instead of Lewis’s “richly Christian view of the world.”
And what of the latest film in the series, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?
I saw an advance screening of the film a couple of weeks ago. I’m pleased to say that there is more respect for appropriate hierarchy here than in the previous two films. For instance, after Edmund and Lucy Pevensie fall back into Narnia through a seascape, Edmund unthinkingly attempts to take charge in a tense situation. The ship’s captain, Drinian, respectfully tells Edmund that the only person he takes orders from is Prince Caspian. Edmund accepts this gentle rebuke. We also see, through Lucy and Edmund’s obnoxious cousin Eustace, the consequences of failing to respect appropriate hierarchy.
When the travelers arrive at an uninhabited island, they discover that anything dropped into a body of water will turn to gold. Caspian—realizing the immense wealth and power that could come to anyone who exploited this knowledge—claims the island as a Narnian possession. He sternly forbids his companions from telling anyone about the island’s secret on pain of death. Edmund immediately (and rather nastily) contests Caspian’s right to command him.
While this may seem like a revisiting of the “who’s the boss?” hostility so much in evidence in Prince Caspian between Peter and Caspian, in reality, the scene comes straight out of the book:
“The king who owned this island,” said Caspian slowly, and his face flushed as he spoke, ”would soon be the richest of all kings of the world. I claim this land for ever as a Narnian possession. . . . And I bind all of you to secrecy. No one must know of this. Not even Drinian—on pain of death, do you hear?”
“Who are you talking to?” said Edmund. “I’m no subject of yours. If anything it’s the other way round. I am one of the four ancient sovereigns of Narnia and you are under allegiance to the High King my brother.”
“So it has come to that, King Edmund, has it?” said Caspian, laying his hand on his sword-hilt.”
In the book, Aslan appears to wake the children out of the trance the island has put them under. In the film, Lucy reminds them that the magician they encountered earlier had warned them that evil would try to sway them from their path.
Parents whose children have watched the previous two Chronicles of Narnia films, and who are eagerly awaiting the third one, might consider using Voyage of the Dawn Treader as a springboard for a discussion about both biblical and non-biblical hierarchy. With this film, as with all others, children should be taught to identify the worldview of those who created it. Where and why does the film deviate from Lewis’s original? Did screenwriters add scenes and change the story in order to add more excitement? Or did they alter the story in order to tone down the Christian message?
While we should be mindful of the film’s messages, we should not focus on them so hard that we cut into our enjoyment of it. It’s a rollicking adventure story, filled with dragons and sea serpents, magicians and Dufflepuds, a delightfully bratty schoolboy who gets his comeuppance—and a Lion who takes the young adventurers to the end of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Think Our Religious Practice(Christianity) is Safe?
When it was happening overseas we ignored it with the reasoning, "It can never happen in the United States".
It's happening in Canada, it will soon be hear.
CULTURE NEWS
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Biblical Preaching Banned from Canadian TV
A Canadian evangelical preacher has been stricken from Christian TV broadcasting after homosexualists complained that he modeled himself after his counterparts in the United States by criticizing the state-sanctioned Gay Agenda.
-- From "Broadcaster suspends reverend's TV show" by CTV.ca News Staff 12/11/10
Christian broadcaster CTS has taken the television show of evangelical minister Charles McVety off the air, after an industry watchdog ruled that statements he had made about homosexuals violated its broadcasting codes.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) said that it had received complaints about how McVety's program, Word TV, had portrayed issues "such as homosexuality, Islam, Haiti and euthanasia," it said in a decision issued Wednesday.
The complaints charged that the program "had included discriminatory comments on the basis of sexual orientation, religion and mental disability," the organization said.
In response, CTS decided to suspend the show, saying that such concerns "are treated seriously."
An influential Canadian evangelical, McVety models himself on the televangical stars south of the border, and has been known to express controversial views.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "Evangelical TV show pulled from the air" by Charles Lewis, National Post 12/10/10
. . . commenting on Toronto's massive gay pride parade, ". . . [it] is a criminal activity, to parade down the streets in the nude," Rev. McVety said on Word TV. "There is the Criminal Code of Canada that says you can't do that. It's an abuse of public space, it's abuse of our children."
The broadcasting council said Rev. McVety derided the city for advertising Toronto as a "sex tourism destination ... with full opportunity for sex with hot boys."
. . . strong comments about a proposed 2010 change to Ontario's sex curriculum that presented homosexuality in a more accepting light . . . "[W]e send little Johnny and little Jane to school, not to learn to be homosexuals and lesbians," Rev. McVety said on air. "We send them there to learn reading, writing and arithmetic and history and all these wonderful things, but unfortunately there is an activist group that is afoot that wants to change our curriculum. Why? Because unfortunately they have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people. And there are not enough of them, so they want to proselytize your children and mine, our grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "Religious Program Distorted Facts and Contained Abusive Comments about Homosexuals" posted at Broadcaster, Canada's Communications Magazine 12/9/10
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Panel examined the complaints under the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code, which prohibit the broadcast of abusive or unduly discriminatory comment about identifiable groups. It also examined them under the Religious Programming Clause of the CAB Code of Ethics, which prohibits attacks on identifiable groups in such programming, as well as the Negative Portrayal Clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.
With respect to the comments about homosexuality, the Panel explained that the program was entitled to air objections to that practice generally, to government funding of gay pride parades and to changes made to an Ontario school curriculum that would include discussion of homosexuality. When, however, the program suggested that homosexuals prey on children, it violated the Human Rights, Religious Programming and Negative Portrayal Clauses.
. . . [McVety] also stated that "speaking out" against homosexuality is now a "crime" in Canada, which is also an inaccurate statement regarding the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Posted by Gabriel Mephibosheth at 1:02 PM
Labels: anti-Christian, ban, Bible, Canada, censorship, evangelicals, gay agenda, hate crimes, hate speech, homosexuality, indoctrination, parade, pastor, pedophilia, public schools, TV
Links to this post
It's happening in Canada, it will soon be hear.
CULTURE NEWS
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Biblical Preaching Banned from Canadian TV
A Canadian evangelical preacher has been stricken from Christian TV broadcasting after homosexualists complained that he modeled himself after his counterparts in the United States by criticizing the state-sanctioned Gay Agenda.
-- From "Broadcaster suspends reverend's TV show" by CTV.ca News Staff 12/11/10
Christian broadcaster CTS has taken the television show of evangelical minister Charles McVety off the air, after an industry watchdog ruled that statements he had made about homosexuals violated its broadcasting codes.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) said that it had received complaints about how McVety's program, Word TV, had portrayed issues "such as homosexuality, Islam, Haiti and euthanasia," it said in a decision issued Wednesday.
The complaints charged that the program "had included discriminatory comments on the basis of sexual orientation, religion and mental disability," the organization said.
In response, CTS decided to suspend the show, saying that such concerns "are treated seriously."
An influential Canadian evangelical, McVety models himself on the televangical stars south of the border, and has been known to express controversial views.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "Evangelical TV show pulled from the air" by Charles Lewis, National Post 12/10/10
. . . commenting on Toronto's massive gay pride parade, ". . . [it] is a criminal activity, to parade down the streets in the nude," Rev. McVety said on Word TV. "There is the Criminal Code of Canada that says you can't do that. It's an abuse of public space, it's abuse of our children."
The broadcasting council said Rev. McVety derided the city for advertising Toronto as a "sex tourism destination ... with full opportunity for sex with hot boys."
. . . strong comments about a proposed 2010 change to Ontario's sex curriculum that presented homosexuality in a more accepting light . . . "[W]e send little Johnny and little Jane to school, not to learn to be homosexuals and lesbians," Rev. McVety said on air. "We send them there to learn reading, writing and arithmetic and history and all these wonderful things, but unfortunately there is an activist group that is afoot that wants to change our curriculum. Why? Because unfortunately they have an insatiable appetite for sex, especially with young people. And there are not enough of them, so they want to proselytize your children and mine, our grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
From "Religious Program Distorted Facts and Contained Abusive Comments about Homosexuals" posted at Broadcaster, Canada's Communications Magazine 12/9/10
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Panel examined the complaints under the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code, which prohibit the broadcast of abusive or unduly discriminatory comment about identifiable groups. It also examined them under the Religious Programming Clause of the CAB Code of Ethics, which prohibits attacks on identifiable groups in such programming, as well as the Negative Portrayal Clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.
With respect to the comments about homosexuality, the Panel explained that the program was entitled to air objections to that practice generally, to government funding of gay pride parades and to changes made to an Ontario school curriculum that would include discussion of homosexuality. When, however, the program suggested that homosexuals prey on children, it violated the Human Rights, Religious Programming and Negative Portrayal Clauses.
. . . [McVety] also stated that "speaking out" against homosexuality is now a "crime" in Canada, which is also an inaccurate statement regarding the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Posted by Gabriel Mephibosheth at 1:02 PM
Labels: anti-Christian, ban, Bible, Canada, censorship, evangelicals, gay agenda, hate crimes, hate speech, homosexuality, indoctrination, parade, pastor, pedophilia, public schools, TV
Links to this post
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Margarine - One of the Most Insidious Hoaxes
BUTTER! Glad I never got onto the margarine bandwagon.
By The Weston A. Price Foundation
The Weston A. Price Foundation provides accurate information about nutrition and is dedicated to putting nutrient-dense foods back on American tables.
Members receive a lively and informative quarterly journal and email updates on current issues and events.Visit their website at www.westonaprice.org .
Are you still shunning butter from your diet? You can stop today because butter can be a very healthy part of your diet.
Why Butter is Better
* Vitamins ...
Butter is a rich source of easily absorbed vitamin A, needed for a wide range of functions, from maintaining good vision to keeping the endocrine system in top shape.
Butter also contains all the other fat-soluble vitamins (D, E and K2), which are often lacking in the modern industrial diet.
* Minerals ...
Butter is rich in important trace minerals, including manganese, chromium, zinc, copper and selenium (a powerful antioxidant). Butter provides more selenium per gram than wheat germ or herring. Butter is also an excellent source of iodine.
* Fatty Acids ...
Butter provides appreciable amounts of short- and medium-chain fatty acids, which support immune function, boost metabolism and have anti-microbial properties; that is, they fight against pathogenic microorganisms in the intestinal tract.
Butter also provides the perfect balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Arachidonic acid in butter is important for brain function, skin health and prostaglandin balance.
* Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) ...
When butter comes from cows eating green grass, it contains high levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a compound that gives excellent protection against cancer and also helps your body build muscle rather than store fat.
* Glycospingolipids ...
These are a special category of fatty acids that protect against gastrointestinal infections, especially in the very young and the elderly. Children given reduced-fat milks have higher rates of diarrhea than those who drink whole milk.
* Cholesterol ...
Despite all of the misinformation you may have heard, cholesterol is needed to maintain intestinal health and for brain and nervous system development in the young.
* Wulzen Factor ...
A hormone-like substance that prevents arthritis and joint stiffness, ensuring that calcium in your body is put into your bones rather than your joints and other tissues. The Wulzen factor is present only in raw butter and cream; it is destroyed by pasteurization.
Butter and Your Health
Is butter really healthy? Let us count the ways …
1. Heart Disease
Butter contains many nutrients that protect against heart disease including vitamins A, D, K2, and E, lecithin, iodine and selenium. A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine (Nutrition Week 3/22/91, 21:12).
2. Cancer
The short- and medium-chain fatty acids in butter have strong anti-tumor effects. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in butter from grass-fed cows also gives excellent protection against cancer.
3. Arthritis
The Wulzen or "anti-stiffness" factor in raw butter and also Vitamin K2 in grasss-fed butter, protect against calcification of the joints as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland. Calves fed pasteurized milk or skim milk develop joint stiffness and do not thrive.
4. Osteoporosis
Vitamins A, D and K2 in butter are essential for the proper absorption of calcium and phosphorus and hence necessary for strong bones and teeth.
5. Thyroid Health
Butter is a good source of iodine, in a highly absorbable form. Butter consumption prevents goiter in mountainous areas where seafood is not available. In addition, vitamin A in butter is essential for proper functioning of the thyroid gland.
6. Digestion
Glycospingolipids in butterfat protect against gastrointestinal infection, especially in the very young and the elderly.
7. Growth & Development
Many factors in the butter ensure optimal growth of children, especially iodine and vitamins A, D and K2. Low-fat diets have been linked to failure to thrive in children -- yet low-fat diets are often recommended for youngsters!
8. Asthma
Saturated fats in butter are critical to lung function and protect against asthma.
9. Overweight
CLA and short- and medium-chain fatty acids in butter help control weight gain.
10. Fertility
Many nutrients contained in butter are needed for fertility and normal reproduction.
Why You Should Avoid Margarine, Shortening and Spreads
There are a myriad of unhealthy components to margarine and other butter imposters, including:
* Trans fats: These unnatural fats in margarine, shortenings and spreads are formed during the process of hydrogenation, which turns liquid vegetable oils into a solid fat
Trans fats contribute to heart disease, cancer, bone problems, hormonal imbalance and skin disease; infertility, difficulties in pregnancy and problems with lactation; and low birth weight, growth problems and learning disabilities in children.
A U.S. government panel of scientists determined that man-made trans fats are unsafe at any level. (Small amounts of natural trans fats occur in butter and other animal fats, but these are not harmful.)
* Free radicals: Free radicals and other toxic breakdown products are the result of high temperature industrial processing of vegetable oils. They contribute to numerous health problems, including cancer and heart disease.
* Synthetic vitamins: Synthetic vitamin A and other vitamins are added to margarine and spreads. These often have an opposite (and detrimental) effect compared to the natural vitamins in butter.
* Emulsifiers and preservatives: Numerous additives of questionable safety are added to margarines and spreads. Most vegetable shortening is stabilized with preservatives like BHT.
* Hexane and other solvents: Used in the extraction process, these industrial chemicals can have toxic effects.
* Bleach: The natural color of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is grey so manufacturers bleach it to make it white. Yellow coloring is then added to margarine and spreads.
* Artificial flavors: These help mask the terrible taste and odor of partially hydrogenated oils, and provide a fake butter taste.
* Mono- and di-glycerides: These contain trans fats that manufacturers do not have to list on the label. They are used in high amounts in so-called "low-trans" spreads.
* Soy protein isolate: This highly processed powder is added to "low-trans" spreads to give them body. It can contribute to thyroid dysfunction, digestive disorders and many other health problems.
* Sterols: Often added to spreads to give them cholesterol-lowering qualities, these estrogen compounds can cause endocrine problems; in animals these sterols contribute to sexual inversion.
How to Purchase Butter
The BEST butter is raw butter from grass-fed cows, preferably organic. Next is pasteurized butter from grass-fed cows, followed by regular pasteurized butter from supermarkets. Even the latter two are still a much healthier choice than margarine or spreads.
And where is the FDA? When are we going to realize that we should not shirk our own responsibilities by transferring them to a bureaucracy?
By The Weston A. Price Foundation
The Weston A. Price Foundation provides accurate information about nutrition and is dedicated to putting nutrient-dense foods back on American tables.
Members receive a lively and informative quarterly journal and email updates on current issues and events.Visit their website at www.westonaprice.org .
Are you still shunning butter from your diet? You can stop today because butter can be a very healthy part of your diet.
Why Butter is Better
* Vitamins ...
Butter is a rich source of easily absorbed vitamin A, needed for a wide range of functions, from maintaining good vision to keeping the endocrine system in top shape.
Butter also contains all the other fat-soluble vitamins (D, E and K2), which are often lacking in the modern industrial diet.
* Minerals ...
Butter is rich in important trace minerals, including manganese, chromium, zinc, copper and selenium (a powerful antioxidant). Butter provides more selenium per gram than wheat germ or herring. Butter is also an excellent source of iodine.
* Fatty Acids ...
Butter provides appreciable amounts of short- and medium-chain fatty acids, which support immune function, boost metabolism and have anti-microbial properties; that is, they fight against pathogenic microorganisms in the intestinal tract.
Butter also provides the perfect balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Arachidonic acid in butter is important for brain function, skin health and prostaglandin balance.
* Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) ...
When butter comes from cows eating green grass, it contains high levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a compound that gives excellent protection against cancer and also helps your body build muscle rather than store fat.
* Glycospingolipids ...
These are a special category of fatty acids that protect against gastrointestinal infections, especially in the very young and the elderly. Children given reduced-fat milks have higher rates of diarrhea than those who drink whole milk.
* Cholesterol ...
Despite all of the misinformation you may have heard, cholesterol is needed to maintain intestinal health and for brain and nervous system development in the young.
* Wulzen Factor ...
A hormone-like substance that prevents arthritis and joint stiffness, ensuring that calcium in your body is put into your bones rather than your joints and other tissues. The Wulzen factor is present only in raw butter and cream; it is destroyed by pasteurization.
Butter and Your Health
Is butter really healthy? Let us count the ways …
1. Heart Disease
Butter contains many nutrients that protect against heart disease including vitamins A, D, K2, and E, lecithin, iodine and selenium. A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine (Nutrition Week 3/22/91, 21:12).
2. Cancer
The short- and medium-chain fatty acids in butter have strong anti-tumor effects. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in butter from grass-fed cows also gives excellent protection against cancer.
3. Arthritis
The Wulzen or "anti-stiffness" factor in raw butter and also Vitamin K2 in grasss-fed butter, protect against calcification of the joints as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland. Calves fed pasteurized milk or skim milk develop joint stiffness and do not thrive.
4. Osteoporosis
Vitamins A, D and K2 in butter are essential for the proper absorption of calcium and phosphorus and hence necessary for strong bones and teeth.
5. Thyroid Health
Butter is a good source of iodine, in a highly absorbable form. Butter consumption prevents goiter in mountainous areas where seafood is not available. In addition, vitamin A in butter is essential for proper functioning of the thyroid gland.
6. Digestion
Glycospingolipids in butterfat protect against gastrointestinal infection, especially in the very young and the elderly.
7. Growth & Development
Many factors in the butter ensure optimal growth of children, especially iodine and vitamins A, D and K2. Low-fat diets have been linked to failure to thrive in children -- yet low-fat diets are often recommended for youngsters!
8. Asthma
Saturated fats in butter are critical to lung function and protect against asthma.
9. Overweight
CLA and short- and medium-chain fatty acids in butter help control weight gain.
10. Fertility
Many nutrients contained in butter are needed for fertility and normal reproduction.
Why You Should Avoid Margarine, Shortening and Spreads
There are a myriad of unhealthy components to margarine and other butter imposters, including:
* Trans fats: These unnatural fats in margarine, shortenings and spreads are formed during the process of hydrogenation, which turns liquid vegetable oils into a solid fat
Trans fats contribute to heart disease, cancer, bone problems, hormonal imbalance and skin disease; infertility, difficulties in pregnancy and problems with lactation; and low birth weight, growth problems and learning disabilities in children.
A U.S. government panel of scientists determined that man-made trans fats are unsafe at any level. (Small amounts of natural trans fats occur in butter and other animal fats, but these are not harmful.)
* Free radicals: Free radicals and other toxic breakdown products are the result of high temperature industrial processing of vegetable oils. They contribute to numerous health problems, including cancer and heart disease.
* Synthetic vitamins: Synthetic vitamin A and other vitamins are added to margarine and spreads. These often have an opposite (and detrimental) effect compared to the natural vitamins in butter.
* Emulsifiers and preservatives: Numerous additives of questionable safety are added to margarines and spreads. Most vegetable shortening is stabilized with preservatives like BHT.
* Hexane and other solvents: Used in the extraction process, these industrial chemicals can have toxic effects.
* Bleach: The natural color of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is grey so manufacturers bleach it to make it white. Yellow coloring is then added to margarine and spreads.
* Artificial flavors: These help mask the terrible taste and odor of partially hydrogenated oils, and provide a fake butter taste.
* Mono- and di-glycerides: These contain trans fats that manufacturers do not have to list on the label. They are used in high amounts in so-called "low-trans" spreads.
* Soy protein isolate: This highly processed powder is added to "low-trans" spreads to give them body. It can contribute to thyroid dysfunction, digestive disorders and many other health problems.
* Sterols: Often added to spreads to give them cholesterol-lowering qualities, these estrogen compounds can cause endocrine problems; in animals these sterols contribute to sexual inversion.
How to Purchase Butter
The BEST butter is raw butter from grass-fed cows, preferably organic. Next is pasteurized butter from grass-fed cows, followed by regular pasteurized butter from supermarkets. Even the latter two are still a much healthier choice than margarine or spreads.
And where is the FDA? When are we going to realize that we should not shirk our own responsibilities by transferring them to a bureaucracy?
Friday, December 03, 2010
How to Straighten This Country Out
By ED Kennedy - Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The recent election offers an incredible opportunity to take actions strong enough to actually get our country out of its current rut and on the road to prosperity.
The economic proposal offered by former Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles does nothing but make matters worse. Raising taxes has never solved any economic problem. The solution to our huge and ever-rising deficits is to increase the tax base by making the economy bigger and government smaller.
How do we do it? Here's how:
First, do away with the IRS.
Replace it with the Fair Tax. Every Fair Tax proposal I've seen calls for lower-income citizens to receive advanced rebates to prevent further hardship on those folks until we can create higher-paying jobs for them. The Fair Tax would cause hundreds of companies to either open headquarters locations or move entirely to the U.S.
The result would be millions of new jobs, good jobs that would result in much higher revenues being collected from the Fair Tax. Employers would be competing for good workers, and the economy would explode with success.
Now, the broken economy is solved. The only thing that could slow it down is continued irresponsible spending by a government gone wrong. So let's fix government.
Let's start by completely doing away with the Department of Education.
This department is a $100 billion quagmire that turns every dollar into 17 cents. Since the formation of this boondoggle more than 30 years ago, education has gone backward. The only result we see from the $100 billion this national disgrace spends annually is increased and unnecessary paperwork for already overworked teachers.
The government would support state schools to the tune of $25 billion of current DOE funding. The states would decide how best to spend the dollars to improve education, and the feds would stay out of their business - thereby saving taxpayers $75 billion a year and greatly improving the education product offered to our children.
Now that we are finally moving in the right direction, let's dissolve the Department of Energy.
This is another bureaucratic nightmare that costs billions and serves no purpose. Since its inception during the Carter administration, energy prices have skyrocketed and we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil. Let individual states determine if they want to drill for oil within their states' boundaries or off their coasts.
This would allow us to take advantage of a couple of the world's richest reserves in Alaska and the Dakotas. The resulting fall in OPEC oil prices would help economies all over the world to grow. The only nations to be hurt would be those that use oil revenues to support terrorism.
In order to keep the remaining departments of government from devouring our newfound prosperity with further incompetence, we'll cut every department's budget by 50 percent. These excess government workers would easily be able to find "productive" jobs in our now-booming economy. The result would be more efficient government that supported rather than crushed good economic initiatives.
EPA and FDA would be defanged and no longer the enemy of every business with an environmental solution or health care breakthrough.
The only department that would be exempted from drastic cuts would be the Department of Defense. The DOD would be charged with protecting our borders and protecting us from terrorists. The DOD would be subjected to extensive audits to expose any wasteful or unnecessary spending. Those guilty of buying "hundred-dollar toilet seats" would be fired and severely punished.
What about health care, you ask? Simple! Scrap the worst piece of legislation in history, Obamacare, and replace it with tort reform and allow health care insurers to compete across state lines. Rates would drop and our now much more gainfully employed workers would more easily be able to afford it.
Finally, put prayer back in schools.
In the 30 years since liberals have kicked God out of our schools, our society and the values that made it great have gone into decay. Respect for authority is disappearing, and our schools are more dangerous and less productive because of these problems.
Let every state put "prayer in schools" on the ballot during the next statewide election. My guess is that such initiatives would pass overwhelmingly in most states. Atheists, radicals and others who object would have the same options that Christians now have: Put their children in private school, home school or find a state with laws they like. This fringe element could also consider moving to countries like Iran, North Korea or France.
These simple improvements might not solve everything, but they would get the ball rolling in the proper direction.
God bless America!
Businessman Ed Kennedy lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at ekennedy10@nc.rr.com.
The recent election offers an incredible opportunity to take actions strong enough to actually get our country out of its current rut and on the road to prosperity.
The economic proposal offered by former Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles does nothing but make matters worse. Raising taxes has never solved any economic problem. The solution to our huge and ever-rising deficits is to increase the tax base by making the economy bigger and government smaller.
How do we do it? Here's how:
First, do away with the IRS.
Replace it with the Fair Tax. Every Fair Tax proposal I've seen calls for lower-income citizens to receive advanced rebates to prevent further hardship on those folks until we can create higher-paying jobs for them. The Fair Tax would cause hundreds of companies to either open headquarters locations or move entirely to the U.S.
The result would be millions of new jobs, good jobs that would result in much higher revenues being collected from the Fair Tax. Employers would be competing for good workers, and the economy would explode with success.
Now, the broken economy is solved. The only thing that could slow it down is continued irresponsible spending by a government gone wrong. So let's fix government.
Let's start by completely doing away with the Department of Education.
This department is a $100 billion quagmire that turns every dollar into 17 cents. Since the formation of this boondoggle more than 30 years ago, education has gone backward. The only result we see from the $100 billion this national disgrace spends annually is increased and unnecessary paperwork for already overworked teachers.
The government would support state schools to the tune of $25 billion of current DOE funding. The states would decide how best to spend the dollars to improve education, and the feds would stay out of their business - thereby saving taxpayers $75 billion a year and greatly improving the education product offered to our children.
Now that we are finally moving in the right direction, let's dissolve the Department of Energy.
This is another bureaucratic nightmare that costs billions and serves no purpose. Since its inception during the Carter administration, energy prices have skyrocketed and we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil. Let individual states determine if they want to drill for oil within their states' boundaries or off their coasts.
This would allow us to take advantage of a couple of the world's richest reserves in Alaska and the Dakotas. The resulting fall in OPEC oil prices would help economies all over the world to grow. The only nations to be hurt would be those that use oil revenues to support terrorism.
In order to keep the remaining departments of government from devouring our newfound prosperity with further incompetence, we'll cut every department's budget by 50 percent. These excess government workers would easily be able to find "productive" jobs in our now-booming economy. The result would be more efficient government that supported rather than crushed good economic initiatives.
EPA and FDA would be defanged and no longer the enemy of every business with an environmental solution or health care breakthrough.
The only department that would be exempted from drastic cuts would be the Department of Defense. The DOD would be charged with protecting our borders and protecting us from terrorists. The DOD would be subjected to extensive audits to expose any wasteful or unnecessary spending. Those guilty of buying "hundred-dollar toilet seats" would be fired and severely punished.
What about health care, you ask? Simple! Scrap the worst piece of legislation in history, Obamacare, and replace it with tort reform and allow health care insurers to compete across state lines. Rates would drop and our now much more gainfully employed workers would more easily be able to afford it.
Finally, put prayer back in schools.
In the 30 years since liberals have kicked God out of our schools, our society and the values that made it great have gone into decay. Respect for authority is disappearing, and our schools are more dangerous and less productive because of these problems.
Let every state put "prayer in schools" on the ballot during the next statewide election. My guess is that such initiatives would pass overwhelmingly in most states. Atheists, radicals and others who object would have the same options that Christians now have: Put their children in private school, home school or find a state with laws they like. This fringe element could also consider moving to countries like Iran, North Korea or France.
These simple improvements might not solve everything, but they would get the ball rolling in the proper direction.
God bless America!
Businessman Ed Kennedy lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at ekennedy10@nc.rr.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)